Allowed

Packiam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC18 Apr 2013WP(MD)/4172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held the petitioner is eligible for funds under Indira Awas Yojana despite exceeding plan area, as design compliance was not a warranted condition. Directed respondent to sanction and pay within three months or installments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Block Development Officer to pay the sanctioned amount within three months with a direction to the President of the Panchayat to disburse the funds.

Packiam, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

Writ Petition(MD)No.4172 of 2013

¶7

Packiam, W/o.Vettri Veeran.

¶8

: Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

2.The Block Development Officer, Vembakkottai Panchayat Union, Vembakkottai, Virudhuangar District.

¶12

3.The President, Nathikudi Panchayat, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to disburse an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.3,200/- to the petitioner under Indira Memorial Housing Scheme.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.T.Perumal For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam, 1 and 2 Addl.Govt.Pleader. For Respondent-3 : Mr.M.Murugan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to sanction a sum of Rs.1,03,200/- under Indira Awas Yojana Scheme.

¶17

2.The petitioner submitted an application for financial assistants to construct a house under Indira Awas Yojana Scheme. The 2nd respondent considered the said application and included the name of the petitioner as a beneficiary under the Scheme. Thereafter, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner constructed a house in her property in Survey No.1372/1, 2A and 1373/2, Nathikudi Village. The petitioner completed the

¶18

¶19

construction. However, she was not given the amount sanctioned under the Scheme. Therefore, she is before this Court.

¶20

3.The third respondent filed a counter affidavit indicating confirmation of factual position that the name of the petitioner was included as a beneficiary under the Scheme. According to the 3rd respondent, the house was not constructed as per the design prepared by the Director of Rural Development. Similarly, the petitioner constructed a house having an area of 456 sq.ft. as against the approved area of 215 sq.ft. In view of those two violations, the amount was not paid to the petitioner.

¶21

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

5.There is no dispute that the name of the petitioner was included as a beneficiary under the Scheme. The proceedings, dated 19.12.2011, on the file of the second respondent gives an indication that the petitioner was selected as a beneficiary. The proceedings also indicates that the petitioner was directed to construct a residential house of an area not below 215 sq.ft.

¶23

6.According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is not eligible for the amount on account of two reasons. The first reason relates to the construction of residential house having an area of 456 sq.ft. as against the approved area of 215 sq.ft. The said contention appear to have no basis, inasmuch as in the proceedings dated 19.11.2012, the second respondent wanted the petitioner to construct a residential house having an area not less than 215 sq.ft. The residential house constructed by the petitioner is stated to be more than 215 sq.ft. Therefore, the petitioner fulfilled the said condition.

¶24

7.The second reason appears to be that the petitioner constructed the residential house without following the design given by the Director of Rural Development. The sanction order does not contain any express condition that the house should be constructed only as per the design given by the Director of Rural Development. The second respondent should have indicated in the sanctioning order that the house should be constructed in accordance with the design prepared by the Director of Rural Development. Therefore, the 3rd respondent was not justified in his contention that the petitioner violated the conditions of the Scheme.

¶25

8.The petitioner has already constructed a residential house on the basis of the proceedings, dated 19.12.2011, on the file of the 2nd respondent. The Scheme is still in force. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given the sanctioned amount.

¶26

9.The Block Development Officer is directed to pay the amount due to the petitioner and communicated in the proceedings, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 19.11.2012. Necessary sanction should be given by the Block Development Officer to pay the amount, as expeditiously as possible,

¶27

¶28

with a direction to the 3rd respondent to disburse the amount. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

¶29

10.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that in view of the financial crisis, the Panchayat would not be in a position to pay the entire amount in one lump-sum. It is open to the 3rd respondent to pay the amount due to the petitioner in three equal monthly instalments.

¶30

11.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Deputy Registrar(Accounts)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

To:

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶37

2.The Block Development Officer, Vembakkottai Panchayat Union, Vembakkottai, Virudhuangar District.

¶38

+1 CC to Mr.M.Murugan, Advocate (SR.No.22115)

¶39

+1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.22393)

¶40

+1 CC to Mr.C.T.Perumal, Advocate (SR.No.22313)

¶41

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4172 of 2013 Dated:18.04.2013

¶42

gb NSV/24.5.13/3P/6C

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Packiam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Packiam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Soundaravalli Vs the District Collector

M/S. Vasantham Catering, Vs the Senior Divisional

M. Sappani @ Ramasami Servai, Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

P.Karthick, Vs the Director of Fisheries

M. Subbiah, Vs the Superintending Engineer

K. Sibi Chakkaravarthy, Vs the Managing Director